Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 3331 OF 2018]
SHRI RAM MURTI SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BRIJESH SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by
the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the High Court
nd
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. 2 Bail
Application No. 44781 of 2015, whereby the High Court
granted bail to the first respondent, who is Accused
No. 2 in Case Crime No. 284 of 2013, registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 & 120B IPC and under
Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Meja, District Allahabad.
3. Having gone through the impugned order, we are
disturbed to note that there is no proper application
of mind on the part of the learned Judge. The High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2019.01.19
10:35:23 IST
Reason:
Court, in the impugned Judgment, has held as under :-
“Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case and
2
considering the nature of accusation
and the severity of punishment in
case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering of the
witnesses and prima facie
satisfaction of the Court in support
of the charge, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail in
this case.”
4. Obviously, the considerations recorded by the
learned Judge are good enough for denial of bail and
yet the learned Judge has granted the bail.
5. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the first respondent submits that he
has been in custody since 08.08.2013. But we are
informed by the prosecution that the trial has not
yet been concluded. Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State, submits that
only 3 out of 13 witnesses have been examined.
Therefore, we set aside the order dated 30.03.2018
and dismiss the application for bail. However, we
make it clear that after the conclusion of the trial,
it will be open to the first respondent to renew his
application for bail before the trial court, in which
case, the same will be considered on its own merits.
3
6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
We direct the trial court to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible and preferably, within four
months.
7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
is/are disposed of.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ DEEPAK GUPTA ]
.......................J.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ]
New Delhi;
November 20, 2018.